17-40L vs. 17-50 Tamron

I'm looking for a new wide-angle lens and am sorta on a budget. Currently the widest lens I have is my 24-105 f/4L and I need something wider. I've heard good things about the 17-40 f4L but I am intrigued by Tamron's 17-50 2.8. I'm curious about the IQ comparison and if the Tamron is able to compete with the Canon. I'm looking for someone who has tested or used both lenses and has valuable information comparing the two. I looked at the 16-35 2.8L but can't really justify that kind of $ right now.

Any additional information would be appreciated!

EDIT: I used to have the Rokinon 14mm and it was a great (to say the least) wide angle. I got rid of it simply because there were too many times I needed to use my filters and couldn't due to the bulbous glass element. I wasn't willing to get the filter system that would allow me to use filters on this lens. Too much hassle for one lens.

The reason I'm leaning towards the 17-40 would be because I already have 77mm adapters and it would save money there. At the same time I'm liking the idea of having 2.8 on a wide angle.

I'm really hoping that someone can tell me something that will help me make up my indecisive mind. :/

Unless you have a crop body In Addition to your 6D, the Tamron is a crop only lens. You should look at the 17-40, 16-35/4 IS and Tokina 16-28/2.8. But then again you would have filter problems on the 16-28. There is also a Tokina 17-35/4 but people don't seem to rave about it like other UWA options.

17-50 is an APS-C lens only. It'll vignette like crazy on your 6D

I never had the Canon, but the Tamron is probably one of the best in the class for the price. The non vc version is sharper than the vc.
It's a very basic lens. There is no usm or is, but what you do have is quality optics. However, there is some quality control issues so you may have to return one or two to get a good one.

JM Photos wrote in post #17108773
I'm looking for a new wide-angle lens and am sorta on a budget. Currently the widest lens I have is my 24-105 f/4L and I need something wider. I've heard good things about the 17-40 f4L but I am intrigued by Tamron's 17-50 2.8. I'm curious about the IQ comparison and if the Tamron is able to compete with the Canon. I'm looking for someone who has tested or used both lenses and has valuable information comparing the two. I looked at the 16-35 2.8L but can't really justify that kind of $ right now.

Any additional information would be appreciated!

EDIT: I used to have the Rokinon 14mm and it was a great (to say the least) wide angle. I got rid of it simply because there were too many times I needed to use my filters and couldn't due to the bulbous glass element. I wasn't willing to get the filter system that would allow me to use filters on this lens. Too much hassle for one lens.

The reason I'm leaning towards the 17-40 would be because I already have 77mm adapters and it would save money there. At the same time I'm liking the idea of having 2.8 on a wide angle.

I'm really hoping that someone can tell me something that will help me make up my indecisive mind. :/

Heya,

Tamron 17-35. Inexpensive and optically as good as what you're looking at. Full frame.

There's a 17-35 F2.8L for $650 I think in the for sale forum right now. It's not as sharp as the 17-40 in the corners, but it's a good lens and fast. Just not sharp at F2.8 really.

Very best,

FEChariot wrote in post #17108781
Unless you have a crop body In Addition to your 6D, the Tamron is a crop only lens. You should look at the 17-40, 16-35/4 IS and Tokina 16-28/2.8. But then again you would have filter problems on the 16-28. There is also a Tokina 17-35/4 but people don't seem to rave about it like other UWA options.

flowrider wrote in post #17108782
17-50 is an APS-C lens only. It'll vignette like crazy on your 6D

Thanks for that, I didn't look close enough to see it was for crops.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17108791
Heya,

Tamron 17-35. Inexpensive and optically as good as what you're looking at. Full frame.

There's a 17-35 F2.8L for $650 I think in the for sale forum right now. It's not as sharp as the 17-40 in the corners, but it's a good lens and fast. Just not sharp at F2.8 really.

Very best,

Okay, I'll take a look at these! Thanks!

The 17-40L is a nice full frame wide angle option for someone on a tighter budget at its current used price. I recently upgraded from the 17-40 to the new 16-35 f/4 IS, but the 17-40L worked very well for my landscape shots. It is a little soft in the corners, but improves as you stop it down.

Dollar for dollar, I don't see how you can get a better lens at this focal range than the Tamron 17-50 non vc.

Frodge wrote in post #17109332
Dollar for dollar, I don't see how you can get a better lens at this focal range than the Tamron 17-50 non vc.

Except it will not work properly with the OP's full frame 6D.

Scott M wrote in post #17109368
Except it will not work properly with the OP's full frame 6D.

Oops. Didn't see that. I was under the impression he was specifically asking about that lens as an option....

Another alternative is the Tokina 16-28mm. It's bulbous, bulky, heavy, but very good IQ. It's about $600-700 which puts it between Canon 17-40 and 16-35's. IQ-wise it may be better than the 17-40 and 16-35f2.8 but probably not the 16-35f4.

Frodge wrote in post #17109777
Oops. Didn't see that. I was under the impression he was specifically asking about that lens as an option....

He was, but he did not realize that it was a crop-only lens when the question was originally posted.

I think I'm going to go with the 17-40 due to the fact that all my filters are 77mm thread and the adapter I have is for 77mm

JM Photos wrote in post #17110705
I think I'm going to go with the 17-40 due to the fact that all my filters are 77mm thread and the adapter I have is for 77mm

Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 also has a 77mm filter thread.

pkim1230 wrote in post #17110840
Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 also has a 77mm filter thread.

Okay good to know. I'll have to make a decision then.